October 4, 2009

But let’s be realistic. Being, in essence, the white party makes the GOP uncool. And that’s only going to get worse as the impact of decades of indoctrination in the uncoolness of white people by the school system and Main Stream Media continue to pile up.

Further, contra Karl Rove, the GOP will never be able to shake its white party image. It will either increase its share of the white vote or it will go out of business as a party capable of winning national power.

My suggestion: the only long-term option for the Republicans, the de facto white party, is to rebrand the Democrats as the de facto black party.

Not the Minority Party or the Cool, Hip, Multicultural Party—but the Black Party. Go with the flow of the fundamental Manichaeism of American thought: Black versus White.

Sure, it’s kind of retarded, but Americans, especially American intellectuals and pundits, aren’t good at thinking in terms of shades of brown. You can’t beat it, so use it.

Hispanics and Asians certainly will never be terribly happy with the idea of being junior partners in the white party. (Indeed, lots of white people have an allergy to belonging to the white party.) Hence, the alternative must be framed that if Hispanics and Asians don’t want to be junior partners in the white party, they get to be junior partners in the black party.

Black or white: choose one.

Or they can not choose and stay home on Election Day. Half a loaf is better than none.

The cunning required in rebranding the Democrats as the black party is to not criticize the Democrats for being the vehicle of African-American political activism, but to praise them for it, over and over, in the most offhand “everybody-knows” ways.

Republicans can hurry along the coming Democratic train wreck by, for example, lauding blacks as the “moral core” of the Democratic Party. Respectfully point out that the Democratic Party is the rightful agent for the assertion of African-American racial interests, and that advancing black interests is central to the nature of the Democratic Party. Note that, while individual blacks wishing to vote for the good of the country are more than welcome in the GOP, black racial activists have their natural home in the Democratic Party. That’s what the Democrats are there for.

Don’t argue it. Just treat it as a given.

Moreover, Republican rhetoric should encourage feelings of proprietariness among blacks toward their Democratic Party. It’s not all that hard to get blacks to feel that they morally deserve something, such as, for example, predominance in the Democratic Party. African-Americans are good at feeling that others owe them things.

This kind of subtle language, casually repeated, puts Democrats in a delicate spot. Either they insult blacks by denying this presumption, or they alarm their Asian, Hispanic, and white supporters by not denying it. As everybody knows, but seldom says, black political dominance hasn’t worked out well for places as far apart as Detroit and Zimbabwe.

For instance, 2016 on the Democratic side will be interesting. If Obama wins re-election in 2012, blacks will argue, not unreasonably, that they’ve brought the Democrats political prosperity and therefore a black deserves a spot on the 2016 national ticket. If Obama loses re-election, the media will relentlessly blame it on white racism, and blacks in 2016 will demand a black candidate to fight the scourge of anti-black feelings.

Even if blacks are rebuffed by the Democrats in the 2016 nominating process, they aren’t going to vote Republican in the fall of 2016. But without a black on the ballot, they won’t show up to vote in quite the huge numbers seen in 2008.

Conversely, if the Democrats pander to blacks in 2016, thus establishing a precedent of a permanent black spot on the national ticket, that will raise severe questions among the rest of this awkward alliance.

Meanwhile, as the black sense of rightful ascendancy in the Democratic Party becomes more pronounced, Hispanics will be demanding that their burgeoning numbers mean that it’s now their turn. More Asians will wonder why they are supporting an agglomeration dominated by blacks who don’t share their values. And white Democrats will wonder how exactly they can prosper in a party where everybody else is allowed to speak out in internal disputes as representatives of a legitimately aggrieved racial group, but they aren’t.

The GOP faces a daunting future of their own making. Then, again, so do the Democrats.

134 comments:

Mark
said...

No, the Democrats aren't the Black Party - they are the Quid Pro Quo Party. Blacks get millions of metric tons of white guilt, affirmative action, minority set-asides and Black History Month; Hispanics get open borders for their cousins; feminists get government-funded abortions and policies that drive more and more women involuntarily into the workplace; and government employees get the best damn benefits package this side of the Atlantic. And on...and on...and on...

Winning means making productive, non-government employees realize that more of that is not in their best interests. But the Democratic Party is incredibly unified around its primary purpose of sucking productive Americans dry and of giving the big middle finger to Middle America.

The Democrats are doing a terrific job of destroying themsleves. I love all the earnest stories on CNN about the plight of inner city blacks in Chicago killing each other. And the Dear Leader and the Dragon Lady, far from being SWPL yuppies, are acting, not even like black celebrities, but like lower middle class blacks throwing some money around with their nights out.

However the Republican party is completely shattered and unable to come up with a coherent, let alone winning, strategy. The establishment will come up with pro-immigration candidates actual Republican voters will loathe and they will lose.

I'd add one thing to my earlier comments, however - as much as we'd like to think otherwise, social attitudes do not move in a straight line. They can careen off into entirely new directions (or old ones) without notice. The current ongoing financial crisis is one example of the type of event that tend to cause sea changes in attitudes and beliefs. Coupled with a black president who embodies the culture of both black entitlement and socialist silliness, the current situation is ripe for such a change, especially considering that Obama's vote came disproportionately from young voters, whose views are far more fluid than those of older voters. America's about to hit a wall, and it's hard to tell what happens next. A bout of racial sanity is a strong possibility.

I do think that it is getting harder to blame "The Man" for black social ills. In many places in New York and Massachussetts, for example, black residents have a black president, a black governor and a black representative as well as a black mayor. However, I think the main obstacle to 70% of white voters voting Republican is public sector unions. These are automatic big government constituencies. And they are growing fast.

I once proposed something similar to this to the old Sam Francis site: destroy the Democrats first, by shattering their coalition. But that plan required too much negativity, and meant to drive blacks, as well as whites, out of the party. (Not as hard as it may look. There are three ways for blacks not to vote Democratic, and only one is by voting Republican.)

But this is even better, and more fun, as it's so... positive.

But why stop at telling Hispanics the Dems are the black party? Why not, at the same time, tell blacks that the Dems are the Hispanic party? At least on odd days; on even days, you could go back to black entitlement.

Really, the Democratic Party is too old and should have gone the way of the Whigs long ago. How many other of the world's political parties date to the slave trade?

Whatever happened to reparations for blacks? Now that democrats have the White House and Congress I have not heard of any push to pass such legislation. Given all the money they are spending on BS stimulus projects, they could easily push reparations.

Obviously the democrats pushed reparations when they weren't in power as a way to rally the base, like the republicans do on abortion and immigration. They talk a good talk, but when elected fail to deliver.

I think republicans should try to push reparations by attributing support for them to democrats. They have plenty of media outlets and blogs to do this. This would get the issue out there. Then it would be interesting to see Obama have to deal with it. As we saw with Gatesgate, when Obama acts like a Black President, his support among all other groups drops.

I am sure other minorities and whites would not be eager to support reparations especially during these hard times. This could be one of your so-called wedge issues to split the democrat vote.

This branding thing might get through for a little while, as long as the Baby Boomers are still running the media. But once they get put out to pasture, the story of Race will no longer be a story about firehoses and police dogs turned on Negro protesters wearing suits. With the Baby Boombers safely at rest, blacks will become just another minority. The media won't give them more attention than Hispanics - most likely less. Your attempts at branding will just sound bizarre then.

Besides, the Democrats will always give visibility to their most important coalition members. You can call the Democratic Party the Black Party, but high-visibility Hispanic, gay, Asian, or whatever "leaders" will belie your claims.

Your fond of quoting Lenin. Remember, he said that little political tricks like this don't work, because classes cannot be deceived.

Steve it won't work.You entirelly ignore the massive faultline of social class and income (the original political dividing line), and the fact that many blue-collar whites are still sceptical about the Republicans (for very good reason Reagan and Bush screwed them big-time, whilst the rich got richer). Also you entirelly ignore the votes of white women who identify with blacks and agianst their own brothers.

I think you're on the right path. The Republican goal has to be to splinter the Democrats. The easygoing attitude Obama has toward neo-communists and self-serving ethnic radicals isn't an isolated case, but is characteristic of the too tolerant spirit of modern liberalism. Republicans need to force the Democrats to exhibit themselves.

There are many ways Republicans could place the Democrats in uncomfortable situations, but we need to have Republicans who aren't McCain clones to pull it off. I think Republicans often make the mistake of pouncing on Democrats too soon. Liberals are their own worst spokesmen, and conservatives would do well to let the liberals unabashedly show and tell. The goal should be to prod the left, but otherwise remain as silent as possible.

All in all, I suspect the situation is only going to get worse for whites no matter which party prevails.

As part of your "white party" strategy you should address Orthodox and Hasidic Jews as one constituency (regardless of the conflicts between them), and make them a sincere separate offer, that their interests will be protected and their values will be respected within "the white party".

Till now, Republicans have seen "Jews" as a constituency that could in principle be won, if the obvious answers to questions such as "which president would be better for Israel?" were in favor of the Republican candidate by a big enough margin. The Jewish vote in Obama's election in 2008 shows that this is not the case. "The Jews" as a whole can never be won to the Republican cause.

But it's tough to do well on a long term basis with the Jews monolithically against you, and Hollywood with them. And by being heavily on the side of the Black party, they make it (at minimum) the party of Blacks and Jews, which is a long way to being the party of the cool, culturally superior, favored people, as opposed to the party of the losers, the uncool, and people who are discriminated against.

The Republican Party needs its own well-established, well-paid-off Jewish factions. The Neocons are not ideal for this, being militarily robust but often socially liberal.

Jewish "Black Power" (that is the beards and hats crowd) is more inclined to favor socially conservative policies. A liberal march to gay marriage and beyond does not protect its values. The multi-day Crown Heights riot of 1991 shows that Hasidic Jews can have interests in security that they do not share with rich secular liberal Jews living in tacitly segregated safe neighborhoods.

These are the people that in principle you might be able to do a deal with. In practice, probably not, but it's got to be tried in case it works, because the payoff if it did work would save you a lot of grief.

This is a brilliant idea. Truly Machiavellian cultural ju-jitsu. Black culture is hip, so Democrats will say Yes, thanks, and embrace black cultural markers as part of their brand. It's already tough for them to distance themselves from odious Sharptonian types, and it won't get any easier if the Republicans can help cement them as the black party.

In terms of playing off the Hispanic and black vote, the demographics seem right, too: Hispanics actually slightly outnumber blacks, and in 15-20 years, when their numerical edge is even greater, they'll hate voting for the black party.

Most people vote against one candidate/party as much as for the other, don't they? Focusing attention on the Dems' ethnic power-grabbing essence won't make them any more lovable.

The only downside is it won't make the Republicans any more lovable, either. So yeah, great strategy, but unfortunately it won't be drafted in the service of lofty ideals like "citizenism", but instead prop up the usual GOP betes noires: corporate welfare, foreign wars, importation of cheap labor. I still end up feeling like a "whom".

If they held a Presidential election tomorrow, and the two candidates were Obama and Romney, Romney would win. Obama was elected in a perfect storm for him: a collapsed economy, an unpopular war, and a weak Republican candidate. Plus he basically lied his way into power. Most Americans, not just the people who read this blog, have come to realize that. They now sense, if not know, that he is in no way a "post-racial" guy. They also know he is not the centrist he portrayed himself as.

But the real problem for the Republicans are the Hispanics. Asians, with their low crime rates and their high SATs, are natural Republicans, and will probably eventually gravitate that way. But Hispanics will always be natural Democrats, and soon enough, they will outnumber blacks. So they will no longer be "junior partners" in the Democratic Party. And there will always be a less than sane contingent of whites who are susceptible to the sort of brainwashing the Democrats offer. So even though the Dems will probably implode in 2012, the real -- and possibly permanent -- problems for the GOP will come when the black/brown portion of the population reaches 40 or 45%, right around 2040.

Forgive a foreigner for intruding on your private grief, but I suggest that a good way for Republicans to adopt yopur suggestion would be repeatedly to congratulate the Democratic Party for having repudiated its racist anti-black history and embraced the opposite.

Forty-plus years ago my grandfather told me, "I don't vote. A working man can't vote Republican and a white man can't vote Democrat". At the time I thought he was a dumb hick, but noe i know different. I was the dumb hick.

This can't work because if republicans talk about race, then they are racist. The only acceptable thing for republicans to do, vis a vis race, is to eat shit and die. The only "win" for them, vis a vis race, is when the subject doesn't come up. These are the rules, you didn't know that?

dearime:"Forgive a foreigner for intruding on your private grief, but I suggest that a good way for Republicans to adopt yopur suggestion would be repeatedly to congratulate the Democratic Party for having repudiated its racist anti-black history and embraced the opposite."

Excellent... >:) And of course this goes hand-in-hand with the Republicans as the anti-slavery party, though you don't want to say "The Party of Lincoln" down South.

A winning Republican strategy is one that gets more white votes, while not discouraging Hispanics and black men to continue sitting on their hands. This Sailer strategy seems good for encouraging Hispanic apathy and also perhaps encouraging apathy in Dem-voting blue-collar whites.

Mind you, another question is why we would want Republicans to win? I tend to agree with Glenn Beck that McCain would have been worse than Obama. Republican presidents are able to pursue 'invade the world-invite the world' with less conservative opposition than Dems arouse. Short of a Ron Paul-ian takeover of the GOP I'm not sure why we should want them to win.

What better way to garner support than to appeal to the deep-seated anti-black sentiments of Whites, Asians and Hispanics?

This would be a surefire solution for the GOP in times of economic prosperity; When job's are abundant, incomes are rising and the average working person isn't preoccupied with his or her finances and overall economic well being.

But be honest with yourselves, many White folks actually like the idea of government assistance in economic downturns. That's one of the reasons Obama got elected in the first place. The Democrats at least pretend to care about people's concerns. Republicans avoid discussing matters of wealth and income distrubition at all costs.

Throughout the years, the GOP was successful at duping the Joe sixpacks of the country into believing that they would always have a shot at being upwardly mobile, if not rich, as long as they worked hard and held strong to those core American values, as espoused by their party. Afterall who needs social welfare when the only ones struggling at the bottom are "the blacks"? As long as unemployment is almost exlusively associated with blacks, American's will dissasociate themselves with teh socialises. Because Blacks don't matter as much as others.

But when enough white people start loosing their homes, their jobs and their financial investments, most white people (regardless of political ideology) will gladly accept any government goodies being afforded to them. Of course there's an exceptional group who hold strong to their free market mentality.

That's how it is. It's always been that way, and it always will be. White American's generally don't need to be vocal in their opposition to Black interests. They just need to be told that their 20k a year jobs will someday translate into higher paying management positions or the assurance that they can become wealthy by starting their own business. It gives them a sense of pride in knowing that, unlike the Blacks, they work hard and take no handouts, at least until the next major economic crisis.

With Hispanic it's much harder to say whether this strategy would work. On the one hand, Hispanics are generally anti-black, but they're also pro-amnesty and tend to support social welfare programs. Which means the GOP would have to give up their White voters to attract more Hispanics.

David, cultivating the Black Hat crowd is interesting, but I just don't see how it will work.

First, the Black Hats don't have any money. With 6, 8, 10 kids per family, they are dirt poor. They regularly engage in creative scams to get government money, both in Israel and the USA. In the Israeli press people express rabid resentment of them for this reason.

Any Republican party talk of cutting off welfare money, living within your means, and standing on your own two feet will not play with Black Hats.

Second,they are separatists. They are not the pavement pounding shock troops for any party.

What exactly would they bring to the Republican table, other than an additional voice demanding more money?

If you did a poll, I bet you would find massive Hasidic support for free medical care, what with all the kids and chronic Jewish diseases from in-breeding.

Alabama's motto "We dare to defend our rights" could be a role model for the future of the white electorate. Alabama is constantly picked on by the MSM,("it is the 23and a quarter anniversary of the Selma civil rights march")so white residents really do not care about being PC. The Alabama electorate is around 65% white and 29% black. The whites voted 88% for McCain and he won Alabama with 60.4% of the vote. The problem nationwide is whites do not dare defend their rights because they are too busy trying to appease and parry the incessant MSM accusations of guilt.

Jewish "Black Power" (that is the beards and hats crowd) is more inclined to favor socially conservative policies. A liberal march to gay marriage and beyond does not protect its values. The multi-day Crown Heights riot of 1991 shows that Hasidic Jews can have interests in security that they do not share with rich secular liberal Jews living in tacitly segregated safe neighborhoods.

These are the people that in principle you might be able to do a deal with. In practice, probably not, but it's got to be tried in case it works, because the payoff if it did work would save you a lot of grief.

What's the point in trying to make Orthodox Jews vote Republican? How much of the electorate are they? 0.1%? What's more, according to Andrew Gelman, the majority of religiously active Jews voted for McCain last year.

No more than a couple percent of Americans are Jews, so who they vote is in itself rather unimportant. Jews are not important because they form a uniform voting block (although they pretty much do), but because they have so much power in shaping public opinion, plus contribute a lot to Democratic campaign coffers. The powerful Jews are not Orthodox but secular and anti-Orthodox, so courting the religious Jews is no use.

A taste:Penny Rosenwasser, Ph.D. A part-time instructor at the City College of San Francisco, she is a social justice practitioner and a white queer Ashkenazi Jew. Penny is completing a book on internalized anti-Semitism, and on its relationship to justice in Israel/Palestine as well as to the construction of race in the United States. [my emphasis]

Republicans could harp on how underrepresented blacks are as delegates to Democratic conventions, given that votes cast by blacks go 90 percent to Democrats. Yes, the Dems have quotas, but they're based on population overall. The quota for black delegates should be 23 percent (and the Hispanic quota too should be higher, but not by so much).

Republicans can be accused of the same thing, but that happens anyway, and besides, they don't have delegate quotas.

At some point there will be an interesting split within the Democratic party when the number of Muslims / Arabs begin to outnumber the Jews and they have to vie for power. Also, as whites decrease as a percentage of the population, they will become marginalized much quicker within the Democratic party. More guys like Van Jones and fewer like Harry Reid.

Steve, being politically incorrect for so long has made you tone deaf. The average Republican strategist reads your article and thinks "Sailer says we win by disenfranchising minorities" which is ok with me but not ok with the rest of the educated public.

It's funny to watch everybody talk about race except the Republicans. It reminds me of a French cartoon I saw where a black kid says something like "We have 3 blacks in our class, 4 Arabs, two Jews. And him (pointing to native Frenchman)-he's nothing." The Republicans are the party of nothings.

Brilliant idea. Let the democrats have that tar-baby (so to speak). Let THEM become the hip-hop party. They can be as cool as they want to be, but a lot of their contributions will dry up. The republicans should shame the democrats into always holding their national conventions in their strongholds, among "their voters" - places like Detroit, Memphis, Baltimore, and Milwaukee.

Of course, as other posters have pointed out, this still doesn't do much for us, unless the GOP stops being exclusively the live-in whore of wealthy business interests.

Interesting idea Steve. But are blacks strong enough to take down the Democratic party from the inside? Will the whites who have controlled the Democratic Party forever really give in to the black faction?

However much white Democrats parade their own moral superiority to Republicans, they are still very racist. Not in their language - they are very PC - but in their actions. When it comes to finding a town to live in, picking a school to send their kids to or which social circle to pursue, they want nothing to do with blacks. They are very practical in their racism and when it comes to serious issues, they know that involving blacks is a bad idea.

What this means for your strategy is that I doubt the white elite of the Democratic Party will let the black faction take charge without a fight, that they will not be tricked into it by flattering their postracial egos. All Democrats know that black politicians are clowns, but they pretend otherwise for their own political gain. Democrats have not had a problem ignoring black politicians who want to make a mark nationally.

The other path is that blacks assert their position in the party by force. I find this unlikely. They cannot credibly threaten to withdraw their support from the party. So in 2016, they will be ignored just like they have been time and again.

I sort of agree with Steve's thoughts on this matter, but the donks, in reality, aren't the 'black' party, they are the govt employee party.

In order to properly think about such things, one has to take into account state and local politics into account. In the banana republic of NJ, the Dems are, more or less, the political wing of NJ govt employees, and though the might be for some things that might benefit blacks, anytime the interest of blacks, especially poor blacks, and govt employees clash, blacks get the short end of the stick. Teacher's unions and school choice, for instance, are only the most prominent example. The Dems will be for stuff that would benefit blacks, but only if said stuff will not harm the economic interests of govt employees. Fact of the matter, the mayor of Newark, this guy named Corey Booker, who is black, constantly makes noises about govt services, like the Newark school system, should be run for the benefit of the who they are aimed at, rather than the govt employees working for the system, which is a big obstacle for him ever getting on the Dem ticket for a statewide office, as his views on stuff like that are unsound.

It's hard to tell in a lot of cases whether this is true for all states, I know NY works like this, and though I've never lived in CA, this seems to be true in CA also. Idaho, and other states that don't generate enough ink for someone not from Idaho like me to get an informed opinion about, I don't know.

It's not as naked, brazen and obvious at the Fed level, but one might remember how the Dem plan to unionize the homeland security work force crashed and burned, in that it was a bald attempt to make the dept more about the welfare of the govt employees working for it, rather than about public safety, and the public opinion did respond to that, and it failed.

Last, but not least, I really cannot see anything wrong with politicians catering to the interests of black people anyway, though one might argue what might or not be fair. In Lincoln's dictum about 'Govt of/by/for the people' the people definitely include black people. What the 'people' definitely exclude, is govt employees in their capacity as govt employees.

Lastly, this might be a better way to go, since I think it has the distinct advantage of being true, though I realize that isn't always an advantage in politics.

Steve should use his genius to find out how the Republicans can get 50% or more of the votes the second high income group, Asians. Asians will be about 10% of the population by 2050. Getting EITHER Indians or northeast Asians would go a long way.

I think you're wrong on this one (for a change), Steve-O: Make the GOP the men's party and hang the "Fag and Feminist Party" label on the Dems.

Think about it: "Hey, black guy, why do you support a radically homosexual party obsessed with a radically gay agenda? Maybe you are a homosexual too?" or "Vote like a man, for crissakes! Vote GOP; the Democratic party is for pissed off feminists". Or try "You vote Democrat? Oh, is Perez Hilton your boyfriend or just your personal hero?". \Also make the Dems out to be the "Loser" party, that if you support them you must be a loser, a mooch, looking for a handout. "Get your hand out of my pocket!" might be a good slogan.

Your idea gets worse every day as America's demographics change, my idea leverages constant demographics. Do black men and "macho" Latino men really want to be seen as supporters of the Gay/Feminist party?

American blacks are not just a racial group, they are an ethnic group as well. American whites are not an ethnic group; therefore, the sort of solidarity you see among blacks is not possible. The Republican party's dilemma is that the interests of their natural voting constituency are different than the interests of their campaign contributors. They cannot serve two masters and they have not - the money boys rule.

"And white Democrats will wonder how exactly they can prosper in a party where everybody else is allowed to speak out in internal disputes as representatives of a legitimately aggrieved racial group, but they aren’t."

Great strategy, but I think this is the major flaw. No white Democrats will actually see the hypocrisy.

I really like the way you're thinking, Steve. Blacks would be quite happy with the Democratics as the minority party as long as Blacks are in charge. Republicans have used this strategy very effectively in the South. When reapportionment created new "majority minority" districts in South Carolina, it guarnteed the election of black legislators and permanent minority status for the Democratic party. The biggest losers of all were Jews who lost their seats in the SC General Assembly to blacks in the newly created districts.

John Craig wroteAsians, with their low crime rates and their high SATs, are natural Republicans, and will probably eventually gravitate that way.--

I can tell you why it wont happen

1. Indians have long memoriesThe republican party is viewed as the party of Nixon and Kissinger and the democrats as the party of Kennedy

John Kennedy is fondly remembered for having sent in a lot of food aid

In the run-up to the 1971 India-pakistan war over bangladesh10 million bangladeshi refugees were driven to India by pakistanand Nixon supported PakistanWhereas Ted Kennedy visited the refugee camps and used his influence to limit arms aid to PakistanWhen war finally broke out, Nixon sent in the USS Enterprise and threatened to nuke IndiaRecently released archives also show Kissinger unsuccessfully begging China to attack India to relieve the pressure on PakistanUltimately Indira Gandhi had balls of steel and refused to back downThroughout this, Ted Kennedy used American public opinion to block Nixon from aiding Pakistan too muchSo in the public Indian memory,Democrats and American public come off as good guys whereas the republicans come off as bad guys

2. Republicans have a reputation as a racist partyIt may be an unfair reputation, but Republicans have to work on itRecently Nikki Hale Randhawa( light skin Punjabi Indian )a member of the South Carolina assembly was evicted from a south carolina country club because she was non-whiteIn her primary against the incumbent white republican he used the race card against her, ( even though she converted to xtianity )

3. Hindus are happy to vote in large numbers for nominal christians, as long as they are sympathetic to their issuesand free of church controlIn India the current defense minister, AK.Anthony and the previous defense minister George Fernandes, won 75% of the vote and defeated their hindu opponentsfrom constituencies that are 80% hindu. But AK.Anthony and George Fernandes are independent of church control

The Democrats are viewed as the party of nominal christiansand Hindus are happy to vote for them overwhelmingly

The republicans are viewed as the party of the church and viewed with suspicion

Several leading republican politicians are personally involved in christian missionary conversion programs in IndiaThese missionary programs mainly stir up the lower castes against the upper castes and cause more affirmative action pressure on upper castesUS Indians are mostly upper castes and deeply resent this

It is felt that if Bobby Jindal had remained a hindu and not converted to christianity, he would not have risen up in the republican partyIndians feel that to rise in the republican party, one would have to convert to christianity

Whereas it is possible to rise in the democratic party and remain a hinduThere are several elected hindus in the democratic party, whereas in the republican party, none has crossed the primary

Finally, in the general electionschristian republicans have used the hindu religion as a smear tactic against hindus who ran as democratsExamples being Swati Dandekar and Satveer Chaudhury

sorry, I just don't buy it. 70% of whites, and Asians, won't abandon white guilt policies until they become so costly the cognative dissonance can't be maintained. But at that point, the minoirity (or elderly, or gov worker) takers will be so numerous, that when that additional 20% wake up, its too late. And remember, the old and the gov workers are a big part of that white number. White producers are simply screwed, irreversably. Imagine the growth in brown power needed before SWPL's notice it within their own enclaves as a threat.

And the DEM infighting won't be strong enough to hurt them until the pie fought over is big enough and the common enemy weak enough...but by then, the common enemy, whitey, is already screwed.

"Forgive a foreigner for intruding on your private grief, but I suggest that a good way for Republicans to adopt yopur suggestion would be repeatedly to congratulate the Democratic Party for having repudiated its racist anti-black history and embraced the opposite."

Really? "Repudiated" with words maybe, meaningless words, but not with actions, which are what count.

Foreigner, do you realize that for over 40 years the Democrat Party has done nothing but pass social policies that keep blacks and other minorities down? The welfare policies alone have destroyed what once were strong black and brown families--you know, moms and dads married and raising their children?-- and intact families in which the man has a job are key to a kid's success in school and in staying out of trouble.

I was entertaining a pair of young women on my deck a couple weeks back and I happened to mention that my distant relative Abraham Piersay was the largest slave owner in Jamestown in the early seventeenth century. Both of them were scandalized and cautioned me not to mention this fact to anyone else.

I added that most of his unfree field workers were white but this didn't seem to matter - the very idea of being related to a slave holder was shocking and unforgiveable.

This attitude toward slavery is at the root of many current social problems. Darwinism is hard for many to appreciate because there is no individual directing the adaptations. The Blind Watchmaker is hard to comprehend. Many people cannot differentiate the effects of some stressor on a population as opposed to the effects on individuals in that population.

Similarly African blacks as a people competed for those slave openings that allowed them - a people without ship building technology - to populate the New World.

Blacks made good field slaves in the Americas. More than half of the white field hands died in their first six months in the Virginia fields. My ancestor like the other plantation owners had tried the native Indians but they were even more unsatisfactory than the whites. The fields needed blacks.

There are several types of malaria and blacks are have at least some immunity to all of them. Blacks used this genetic advantage also to gain a place in the Americas. Whites got tropical parasites to which blacks had some immunity. Indians who lack genetic diversity died from the European's smallpox and the African's Malaria and Yellow Fever.

Without their advantages as field slaves, blacks today would only be in Africa. The best thing that ever happened to the black peoples of Africa was chattel slavery. It was their ticket out.

Nothing I have written here is untrue but all of it is highly controversial. Today both whites and blacks like to imagine the black slave trade as a Holocaust. A lot of individuals died in the process but it was not a holocaust. The Nazis tried to exterminate the Jews and Gypsies. Americam plantation owners tried to keep their workforce alive and healthy - that's why they used blacks in the first place.

The other major confusion about the white role in slavery is that the whites started it - No - whites ended it. The first opponent of slavery was probably Wang Mang a first century Han emperor. He reversed his "free the slaves policy" soon however and slavery went unchallenged everywhere until St. Patrick. Patrick's church was the only more or less institutional anti-slavery operation in the world. That was until the Quakers and Wilberforce in the late eighteen century came along. It never occured to Jesus Christ, Confusious, or the Buddah to question slavery. All the New World Indians, the Old World Indians, the Vikings and the Mongols had slavery. Slavery was only opposed by "Age of Enlightenment" Protestant whites.

Whites should be eager to discuss slavery. All other races should feel the burden of guilt. Americans not only argued against slavery in the pulpits but they also bled to end it. America and American whites have the best record on slavery. White guilt about slavery just doesn't make any sense.

You could sooner pass a monkey through a rats gall bladder then get republicans to employ this commendable strategy.C'mon.What's the first thing republicans did after hussein's election?Put steele at the head of the rnc.And didn't the republicans, after their well deserved loss, commit themselves to redoubling their efforts to "reach out" to the various minority communities? And oh yeah, republicans were instrumental in bringing our current state of affairs about weren't they?Caucasian American please. We don't need no stinkin republicans. Let them swim in a tub of bile.We need to elect third and fourth party reps committed to bringing the beltway belly bumpers to a screeching halt.Republicans have shown us that putting faith or confidence in them is delusional at best and suicidal at worst.Let's get that hopeychangey thing working for the majority of Americans, us, who are without any representation at all.comprende amigos?

I do think that it is getting harder to blame "The Man" for black social ills. In many places in New York and Massachussetts, for example, black residents have a black president, a black governor and a black representative as well as a black mayor.

Well, apparently it's going to take another 30 years to overcome the legacy of endemic racism. According to O'Connor, anyway.

Like fusion power, the end of "affirmative action" will always be 30 years in the future.

The Democrats are way too smart to put another black on the ticket in the near future. They recognize that millions of their white supporters would startle and think "Uh, we didn't intend that this was going to be a permanent thing."

A fair number of Obama supporters had the attitude identified by (not held by) John Derbyshire: "We have to elect a black guy sometime. This guy seems really good for a black. Might as well elect him now and get it over with -- then we won't have to nominate another one for, well, they're 10% of the population, so let's say 90 years or so."

But seriously I do not accept the premise; the Republicans are not the white party. They are an alliance between businessmen and rural people. These do happen to be white, but that does not make them the white party.

I think a defining trait of a "white party" is that it's not afraid to call itself..."the white party". If a Democrat says, "the Dems are the black man's party" it might or might not go over well, depending on the context, but if a Republican says (falsely) "the GOP is lookin out for the white man" both he and the party would be denounced as evil white racists. And Democrats do more or less come out and say the former, in a nudge-nudge sort of way; Republicans never ever come out and say the latter, even with the faintest hint.

Don't be surprised if the black vote (especially in the South) gives "some" votes to the GOP.

Blacks have NOTHING in common with white liberals.

After Obama's election, most blacks will feel basic civil rights are secure, and will feel free to vote on other issues, such as social issues, and in that context, blacks are generally conservative. In some ways you can argue rap music is "conservative".

As we have seen with many lower income whites ("what's the matter with kansas?") social issues trump economic issues.

After healthcare, as white liberals move on to gay marriage, abortion, and the environment, most of black America will either be repulsed or disinterested.

Steve, you have an easy to execute programmatic response, but I think it is more likely blacks lean GOP and Hispanics lean Democratic. That would make it hard to paint each each party in black and white terms.

The only downside is it won't make the Republicans any more lovable, either.

And that will be the story, how the GOP got the Dems' dander up and all in a huff over their cynical ploy to stir up the whitebread torch n' pitchfork crowd.

The rest'll be on the back pages.

Money will be the key to whites fighting off their own dispossession, not votes. When whites get over their quaint anachronistic view that good politics should be free (hat tip to Yggdrasil), they'll start acting like Jews and their interests will be taken seriously. Buying politicians is how you get representation.

Not to say I don't like Steve's idea. I smiled when I read it, it's exactly the sort of thing I'd cook up if I was a Republican strategist. Of course anyone suggesting such a thing would probably be run off by the idiots running the GOP.

A Republican candidate for president who made no bones about his/her opposition to affirmative action and open borders would win a stunning victory. The hunger for open, not covert, opposition to favoritism for blacks and browns is palpable. So the issue is whether Republican leaders will align themselves with white sentiment. The RINOs are empty husks waiting to be cut down. The only question is when.

In November I would have voted for Obama if I had been an American. Now, not so much. That remark he made about the policeman who arrested Gates was telling. I am also not impressed with the way he has caved in on the government health care. I LOT of Dems are going to be angry about that and just might not vote at all in 2012.

The whole race/IQ thing is bothering me a lot. The reason I believe that races DO have different IQ's is because it seems plausible. There seems to be a lot of corroborating evidence. For example, black people themselves often talk about the fact that blacks get considerably lower grades, on average, in school. Also there is the extreme dysfunction seen in Africa, and in places such as Detroit.

I don't want to believe this IQ stuff, and I wish I had never looked into it. But you know it is not just the matter of IQ, but also the matter of violence. Blacks do seem to be, on average, much more violent than other races...at least...this seems to be the case judging by what is happening in Africa, Chicago, Detroit, etc. Even in Canada which is only 1% or 2% black, blacks seem to be disproportionately involved in crime. (Which is not to say that all blacks are criminals, of course).

I'm beginning to wish I had never looked into HBD. It makes me feel scared and defensive. I'd rather just not know about it, and go back to believing the post-modern crap. I had a lot more peace of mind back then. Besides, it is not as if knowing about it can help the situation.

You know who I feel most sorry for? For smart, non-violent blacks living in some God-forsaken part of Africa run by stupid, violent people.

The GOP is doomed. Branding the Democratic Party as the "Black Party" will not piss off Dem Hispanic and Asian voters into staying home or voting Republican because eventhough they are not getting the biggest piece of the pie right now from the Dems, they are getting nothing from the GOP. Minorities vote with their ethnic interests in mind no matter where they are and if the GOP isn't offerring some spoils to disgruntled Asians and Hispanics, then they won't bite. The GOP can win the white vote but it would be really difficult and by 2050 it won't matter if they even get 100% of the white vote because whites will be a minority by then. The two party system is bunk anyways, it would be much better if the GOP dissolved and the Democratic party splintered among ethnic lines.

Hispanics can't replace blacks as anything because Hispanics aren't cool. The cultural superiority of black Americans is a major factor in the bizarre politicking of the last 60 years. Sure, Western high culture is superior in an absolute sense but how integrated is Western high culture in anybody's life? Folk culture often matters more and in the US, almost nobody has any, except for black people. I have some folk culture but it's not as awesome as black American folk culture. It's not as godawfully stupid and annoying as the varieties of Hispanic folk culture though.

I'm beginning to wish I had never looked into HBD. It makes me feel scared and defensive. I'd rather just not know about it, and go back to believing the post-modern crap. I had a lot more peace of mind back then.

Welcome to the club.

I bet there's not a poster here [other than maybe "Truth"] who wishes he couldn't go back to the youthful days of his naivete before he learned about the horror of our looming demographic catastrophe.

Besides, it is not as if knowing about it can help the situation.

The first & most important rule of hopeless situations is that you must be able to summon the strength of character to admit to yourself the hopelessness of the situation in which you find yourself.

Only after you have accepted the hopelessness of it can you then begin to formulate an exit strategy.

Immigrants will be predominantly South American Indigenous and Black. This will result in schools, and a society, that Asians won't like. So they will go back to Asia.

So even if they are able to "control" the US, they won't want it.

So if they want this part of the world to be pleasant for themselves, they should vote for immigration restriction, which, at present, means whites, which, theoretically means Republicans. They should seek out the best Republicans in this way; even run on this platform themselves; it would be easier for them than for whites because they would be less likely to be labeled as racists.

I love the Sailer Gambit. Besides, what do the Republicans have to lose? Thier future is Zimbabwe anyways.

But I think that the strategy should be double edged though; Republicans ought to be asserting that the Democrats represent only the aspirations of blacks and simultaneously asserting the obvious Democrat hostility to whites, to men, to Christians, to traditionalists. The Dems ought to be called the Party of Hate that they most certainly are-i.e. "while Republicans respect the Democrat Party as the vehicle for black political power no decent American can forgive Democrat antipathy and bigotry towards white Americans. Every American is entitled to civil rights and equal protection yada, yada" This is a message that will resonate well with alot of the crackers who are sick and tired of how ugly and hostile to whitey the nation has become while at the same time peeling off some of the crackers who currently vote democrat- think Reagan democrats for example.

So the Sotomayer nomination should have been framed as a struggle to defeat Democrat hostility to whites;i.e. Once again Democrats have nominated to the SC an extremist with a long record of hostility to whites who will vote to cheat your children out of thier civil rights simply because they are white.

Each tax increase, entitlement program and liberal nomination should be framed as yet another example of Democrat hostility to whites. Its all about race, baby!! Not only is it fun to play the race card on the Dems but it also has the distinct advantage of being true.

Well thanks for letting me vent, Mr. Steve- as if you actually read all this stuff:)

"I added that most of his unfree field workers were white but this didn't seem to matter..."

Well it probably didn't matter because after 7 years (or 10 or 12 with bad behavior) they weren't "unfree" anymore; and their kids never were.

"Similarly African blacks as a people competed for those slave openings that allowed them - a people without ship building technology"

Free hunter gatherers and farmers "competing" to be shackled and bound on a slave ship defecating on themselves for three months? Wow, I'd never heard that, the West African unemployment rate must have been high!

"Without their advantages as field slaves, blacks today would only be in Africa."

"More than half of the white field hands died in their first six months in the Virginia fields. My ancestor like the other plantation owners had tried the native Indians but they were even more unsatisfactory than the whites. The fields needed blacks."

This is truth.

"American whites are not an ethnic group; therefore, the sort of solidarity you see among blacks is not possible."

The only two things black people ever express solidarity in are music and voting for democrats.

"African-Americans are good at feeling that others owe them things."

Not nearly as good as white folks, that's why most of you are so rankled by Obama winning.

"White American's generally don't need to be vocal in their opposition to Black interests. They just need to be told that their 20k a year jobs will someday translate into higher paying management positions or the assurance that they can become wealthy by starting their own business. It gives them a sense of pride in knowing that, unlike the Blacks, they work hard and take no handouts, at least until the next major economic crisis."

"But seriously I do not accept the premise; the Republicans are not the white party"

No, they are the "rich, old white males" party.

"Blacks have NOTHING in common with white liberals."

Sure we do Sport, heartbeats, pulses, hangovers after too many drinks....

"it's exactly the sort of thing I'd cook up if I was a Republican strategist."

First off, there's a reason the Republicans lost the House, the Senate, and the White House. They worked hard at it for a long-ass time.

To get more of the white vote, Republicans need to target policies to the whites who don't vote for them: single women, young college-educated whites of both sexes, private and public union members, the deserving poor. I'm sure there are more and finer slices.

Get white WOMEN (there ya go testy) to vote Republican. As important as the votes, women raise kids, they volunteer, socialize, etc. All the stuff that smart white women do for Democrats, they'd do for Republicans. Move away from the no-birth control-no-abortion-for-any-reason folks. They're a tiny group, but they're crazy loud. They turn off huge chunks of women.

The Republicans are the ones who tell single white women if a (black) guy rapes them, they have to have the kid. Not only that, Republicans would keep them from taking birth control to prevent it. Even older married white women remember being young, and how much having a thug or loser's baby, or even bad timing with good genes and fathering would have sucked. So they don't vote Republican. It's hard to believe, but there was a time when abortion wasn't that important. And guys, if your daughter wanted to abort a baby loser or thug, would you really want the kid born? A side benefit of free and legal birth control and abortion is fewer (but sadly lower quality) minorities in the next generation.

I know free market capitalism rocks, but we don't got it now. Pretending to be free marketers while keeping corporate welfare is hypocrisy, and worse, it hurts the party.

Sure, the internet libertarians blog and blog about it. If the party listens to them, the GOP will have all the political influence that libertarians currently enjoy. Call it making capitalism work for the working, or some such.

Maybe raise the earned income tax credit, but only for married couples. Maybe a tax credit for couples where one parent stays at home and the other works full time. Crank up the tax credit if they homeschool, because they're removing pressure on the public schools. Tax credit for private school tuition: help offset the double-whammy of paying for school twice. If young married white people could send their kids to decent schools even living in bad districts, whites would start having kids earlier.

3. Call out the colleges and universities for their monopolistic price-fixing. Bring trustees and administrators up on Rico charges. Civil suit away their endowments: redistribute it to the parents that the schools cheated. This one might be harsh. At least tax college endowments: they aren't charities.

Now Sailer advocates using a surreptitious "N-" strategy against the Democrats to keep the party relevant; I on the other hand would look really deep into the problem., put together a think tank or the world's leading economists, intellectuals and business minds and come up with strategy number 2:

It's time to get the Democrats to hold that "frank national discussion on race" (i.e. the black race) they've been talking about forever. I'm sure getting them to talk about racial issues in depth will generate many gaffes. The questions need not be overly provocative so long as liberals aren't allowed to get away with spouting platitudes.

Don't think the "black party" strategy would be very plausible. Far better would be to set Democratic factions fighting against each other.

For instance, at the DNC 2008, blacks and gays had a behind-the-scenes fight over quotas and other party rules. The gays won. The gays also were particularly disdainful of DNC CEO Leah Daughtry, a black Pentecostal minister. (This came out in a lawsuit against Howard Dean, I think.)

To my knowledge, the GOP wasn't even aware of this split, and they're too sissy to exploit it anyway.

As for appealing to Jews, Mondoweiss reported Jews make up more than 50% of Dem presidential giving. It's not just votes, it's the money, and that could be even harder to win.

"Now Sailer advocates using a surreptitious "N-" strategy against the Democrats to keep the party relevant; I on the other hand would look really deep into the problem., put together a think tank or the world's leading economists, intellectuals and business minds and come up with strategy number 2:

NOMINATE BETTER FUCKING CANDIDATES!"

Amen to that! But define "better" as truly conservative in re limited government, control of immigration, and individual freedom, and there's the Republican dilemma: they don't believe they can win without kissing up to Hispanics and the religious right, and they don't really want a smaller goverment.

I bet there's not a poster here [other than maybe "Truth"] who wishes he couldn't go back to the youthful days of his naivete before he learned about the horror of our looming demographic catastrophe.

Absolutely!

I would love to back to being an airhead liberal/leftie, I was much happier - in a way. But I looked into the abyss and the abyss etc etc.

I can never go back now and I wouldnt want to, the truth shall set you free. I'm fond of taunting liberal types online; firstly that I know what they think because I was them and secondly for all their screaming about racism, one day they may well turn into me too - but I wll never be one of them again.

"Get white WOMEN (there ya go testy) to vote Republican. As important as the votes, women raise kids, they volunteer, socialize, etc. All the stuff that smart white women do for Democrats, they'd do for Republicans. Move away from the no-birth control-no-abortion-for-any-reason folks. They're a tiny group, but they're crazy loud. They turn off huge chunks of women."

There you have it. Get a block of people who have little investment in society and minimal morals to vote for you because you promise to uphold their immoral lifestyle and subsidize their parasitism.

This brings us right back to the problem of women voting. They aren't civic minded. They vote their self interest at the expense of others in society.

1. Tell hispanics they are hardworking, show them that their hardwork is going into the pocket of another group that doesn't work as hard...2. Bring to light examples of Hispanics losing to blacks in the affirmative action.3. Make Vargas, the Ricci hispanic firefighter, a household name.4. Democratic party is the party of fags and women (whoever said that had it right)5. Democratic party is the party of anti-religion.6. Remind them of why they or they parents left Mexico.

Amen to that! But define "better" as truly conservative in re limited government, control of immigration, and individual freedom, and there's the Republican dilemma: they don't believe they can win without kissing up to Hispanics and the religious right, and they don't really want a smaller goverment.

It's a fairly sensible strategy for a political party to kiss up to people who actually procreate.

The best strategy would be to advocate for policies that would negatively affect those white voters who have, so far, been unafected by mass immigration. In other words, be a democrat and push for lax standards for foreign lawyers and doctors tranfering to the American system, and advocate for increased immigration from high IQ Asian nations. Only when the white upper classes are being paid $30,000 per year for what once earned them $150,000 per year will a shift to 70% be seen. That, and the Republicans need to stop being total yahoos.

Big Bill and TH, I agree with your description of the Black Hats, but I don't agree that they are not worth winning.

If you don't want them, all the features that make them not worth winning must also make gentiles with the same profile not worth winning, right?

TH. as I see it, a majority of religiously active Jews voting for McCain last year just shows that the task of winning them as a solid block is doable. That's a good thing.

Big Bill, if a very high priority on fertility, consequent chronic lack of money, and corresponding values of willingness to scramble, scheme and scam to get by, of lack of interest in being "pavement pounding shock troops", and of a "no sale" reaction to "cutting off welfare money, living within your means, and standing on your own two feet" - and no free medical care - mean this is a constituency not worth seeking or representing, then doesn't the same apply to gentiles with a high fertility culture and the lack of money, the lifestyle and the values that go with that?

If you want high white fertility, and certain policies as a means to an end, then the Black Hats are a canary in the coal mine. If the Black Hats think your policies are poison, they're probably no good for nurturing non-violent highly fertile constituents in general.

(Personally, I like having highly fertile non-violent neighbors who have no interest in being "pavement pounding shock troops". "Safe neighborhood, and it's clear there'll be enough kids to sustain it" fills my bill of requirements.)

If you want certain policies, and white gentile fertility is a means to an end, then you may have to accept that your preferred policies have a term: they last only till the group entrusted with supporting them withers for lack of sufficient high fertility sub-groups to compensate for the low-fertility sub-groups you'll inevitably get.

From here on in the only fun is going to be to force white liberals to actually experience having to work next to blacks. In my own field, law, there are scores of larger firms, i.e. over 100 lawyers, whose associate ranks are less than 2% black. conservatives should be picketing these businesses and doing anything necessary to force media to highlight the obvious SWPL hypocrisy. Conservative PI groups should be as assiduous in suing these firms on behalf of unhired blacks as the SPLC is in suing skinheads.

An excellent strategy. The Democratic party is an un-wieldy coalition of conflicting groups. This was clearly demonstrated in the 2008 primaries. People have short memories, I think people forget how nasty the Obama-Clinton face off became. Obama was trying to use the race card against Clinton, while she in turn tried to use the gender card against him. After it was over many of the white feminists were openly talking about not voting for Obama. A little well placed push here and there could send the coalition tumbling.

A Republican candidate for president who made no bones about his/her opposition to affirmative action and open borders would win a stunning victory.

You mean, in a magical world where there are no hostile edits, mics "accidentally" left on, etc? Overcoming a hostile media is no mean feat. It takes a whole hell of a lot more than a couple of planks in the platform.

"Blacks made good field slaves in the Americas. More than half of the white field hands died in their first six months in the Virginia fields. My ancestor like the other plantation owners had tried the native Indians but they were even more unsatisfactory than the whites. The fields needed blacks."

This is more than a little wrong, in fact it is exactly backwards. First, White indentured servants dying was a feature not a bug. Indentured servants were free save the cost of shipping them to the colonies and their irreducible upkeep. Surviving the contract period meant the plantation had to provide land, tools and seed to the former servant. This kind of arrangement only provides cheap labor if the contract is not survived. Indeed once the tidewater became a semi-healthful area and indentures were actually completed in greater numbers was chattle slavery resorted to. Raw greed required Blacks, not the fields.

The whole race/IQ thing is bothering me a lot. The reason I believe that races DO have different IQ's is because it seems plausible. There seems to be a lot of corroborating evidence.

Not that we're ever going to come to a meeting of the minds on race, but let me put another arrow in your quiver: racial differences in intelligence (and behavioral genetics in general) are the DEFAULT assumption of evolution; why would humanity remain the same inside the skull, and nowhere else?

I had a lot more peace of mind back then.

Peace of mind obviously isn't always the appropriate state. Take comfort in the fact that you aren't shirking your duty as an owner of a life.

Besides, it is not as if knowing about it can help the situation.

Nonsense. You're one less person standing in the way. Convert two other people to realism before you shuffle off. Who knows, you might get addicted and convert a few score.

You know who I feel most sorry for? For smart, non-violent blacks living in some God-forsaken part of Africa run by stupid, violent people.

Maybe we should all feel sorry for what will happen to the world if whites keep up the stupidity. Anyone think the lights will stay on in Africa long after whitey's gone?

couchscientist:Ways to drive Hispanics away from the Democratic Party...

In your dreams:

The Fiscal Cost of Low-Skill Households to the U.S. TaxpayerApril 4, 2007by Robert Rector, Christine Kim and Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.heritage.orgEXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ...A household’s net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. If the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services alone are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $22,449 (expenditures of $32,138 minus $9,689 in taxes)...

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: ...A household's net fiscal deficit equals the cost of benefits and services received minus taxes paid. When the costs of direct and means-tested benefits, education, and population-based services are counted, the average low-skill household had a fiscal deficit of $19,588 (expenditures of $30,160 minus $10,573 in taxes)....

What you really need to do is create populist arguments and policies that have the side-effect of destroying left-wing commercial interests.

1) Price controls on university tuition combined with debt forgiveness for existing loans. Sell this as a way to make education more accessible when what you are really doing is starving the unis of funds.

2) Allowing legalized file-sharing of movies, music and books. Sell the idea as not invading privacy when what you are really doing is starving the media of funds.

These are two of the most important programs the Republicans should implement. The media/educational complex is the single most dangerous obstacle to the Republican Party. By setting up the various Democrat constituents against each other you will go a long way toward winning people over to the GOP.

Of course, ending wars (or, at least winning them), immigration and offshore outsourcing should be staple positions of the new GOP.

I have serious doubts that limited government, free markets, and personal responsibility work as a message anymore. There are too many people who feel, rightly or wrongly, that the system is rigged against them to accept these ideas as gospel. Sure, the Republicans could try this once they are in power, but as a message? No.

In other words...push for lax standards for foreign lawyers and doctors transfering to the American system

Don't forget journalists and newspaper editors. After all, the reason all those newspapers are bleeding red ink must have something to do with the excessively high cost of labor.

Yes, the GOP should do everything it can to weaken industries that lean heavily towards the Dems, including on Hollywood, which gets away with the worst business practices on the planet: temporary contrcat workers rather than employees, blatant sexual harrassment, blatant racial discrimination, age discrimination and sex discrimination, and God only knows what else.

A Republican candidate for president who made no bones about his/her opposition to affirmative action and open borders would win a stunning victory.

I'd settle for a Republican who didn't say jack shit about it during the election but then eliminated every AA/diversity program he possibly could via executive order after arriving at the White House.

And the truth is that the next Republican president is probably going to have to do something remarkably close to that. To get a single damn thing from GOP representatives, paleo and social conservatives have to twist arms and raise a ruckus; but to the neos and business conservatives, or should I just say cons, they give it away for free. The paleos have started to learn our lesson, and the results of the last 2 elections are proof of that. We are free votes for the GOP no longer.

Obviously the quality of the candidates is not the problem. At least not when using obama as a template. The problem is the hostile media. Sailer's strategy is brilliant (as usual) in cornering the media in their self-created cage.

My guess is just tradition. It wasn't that long ago they were semi-disenfranchised. Seventy years ago Japanese-Americans on the West Coast were put into relocation camps. Just one generation ago they didn't dominate the Cal campus (and others) they way they do now. A large number of Chinese-Americans still lived in Chinatowns. You certainly didn't see Asians in country clubs and other white social gathering places. This created a sense of being outsiders, which the Democratic Party appeals to. But now things are different. If your SATs and grades are better, why support the part of affirmative action? And if you keep your nose clean, why support the party favoring criminal rights? BTW, I'm basically talking about northeast Asians here (J,K,C), not Hmong or Filipinos.

Sub-continental Indians, or Davidians, are in their own category. (Racially, they're closer to being Caucasians, but usually get grouped in with other Asians.) They too tend to get high SATs and be law-abiding, so they may have long memories, but eventually they will start voting in their own self-interest. For them to vote Dem because of resentment against Kissinger is a little like blacks voting Republican because that was the party of Lincoln.

I think to make your Black party / white party idea stick, you should at least break down party identity into several aspects, and look at how each party holds up or doesn't hold up on each level.

Try this:* Personnel when exercising power: appointments.* Policy when exercising power: who gets what, with what results?* Personnel when seeking power: elites, activists, likely voters.* Policy when seeking power: get out the vote, campaigning, advertising, rhetoric and so on.

If you're going to try to redefine the parties based on just one piece of one aspect, people won't be convinced by it, nor should they be convinced by it. They'll see through it. Only two aspects of power can really be hidden: who funds you, and who gains through the "mystery meat" in all those incomprehensible, pork-laden bills. The rest is as obvious as who comes and knocks on your door on behalf of which candidate.

If your "strategy" is a piece of rhetoric, that's one part of one fourth of the total picture. It's not serious, by itself.

"Sub-continental Indians, or Davidians, are in their own category. (Racially, they're closer to being Caucasians, but usually get grouped in with other Asians.)"

There was a thread recently on this subject in an Indian blog, and they were discussing a recent conclusion that the north/south divide in Indian genetics was largely "myth." I don't know. I'm not an expert. But despite the differences among them, there really is a remarkable continuity of look and culture in that country. Wherever they come from in the country, whatever color or type of features, they are usually -- not always -- recognizable as Indian. The identity embraces more different types than any other nationality or ethnicity. It's quite interesting.

I like the proposal, but aren't you making the great mistake of underestimating your opposition here? Let me first come clean. I am a South Asian immigrant academic in one of this country's great universities. I am a liberal, also a proponent of continued immigration. I think that the demographics of this country are now at a point where minorities, in particular rich ones, do not need to beg for favors from whites, but I would like this trend to become stronger. Thus, I am your Enemy.

Where you go wrong is in underestimating the Machiavellian depths to which we (not the royal "we" here) will go to win this war. And I see a clear solution to this war: disenfranchise the hicks! This is really the flip side of your arguments, and just so you know, while you can up the ante, so can we! Heck, we even will read your articles and seek inspiration from there!

Anyway, disenfranchising the hicks. This should be done using multiple strategies. First, one of the interesting patterns that have emerged in America in the last few decades is the city/country divide. Most urban/suburban folks (white or not) do not know that many rural people now. Therefore, empathy for rural folks is likely to be lower. I would like more movies, more TV propaganda that makes white folks in the suburbs/cities fear and loathe the "rednecks", or at least consider them "uncool". In particular, make educated white women realize that the hicks are seeking to control their ovaries. Rather than whites vs blacks, make it rural-whites-vs-rest.

This will have another beautiful effect: the conservatives will have to choose between two cultures--rural whites and urban, upwardly mobile types. They are damned either way. And nicely, the need for even the suburban whites will shrink soon as immigration grows.

Which brings me to the second part.Just like the mythos of black-on-white rape fueled the antiblack sentiment at that time, use the specter of the neoconfederates and the skinheads prowling around in the hicktowns of America to unify the minorities. The SPLC already does this. But I say that we should take propaganda of this sort to the schools, to hispanic and asian neighborhoods. Show them graphic footage of undocumented workers dying on the way to America, etc. At the same time, educate immigrants' children about the history of colonial domination and how the rural whites carry that legacy. Make them feel this in the concrete rather than the abstract--bus them to rural country fairs and make them feel the alienation and the cold stares, teach them that confederate flags still fly in America.

But none of these policies will work alone. Most importantly, remember that US is a lobbycracy. So get to the lobbies. Systems like H1 visas that are needed to maintain companies like Microsoft and Google--use these as wedge issues. The Jews know well that they are better off in an environment not dominated by gentiles--make the Asians understand this too. Make the urban/suburban whites understand that their place at the head of society is secure--so it is in Brazil! They don't need the hicks except for amusement.

We should let our choices be guided by cold arithmetic. All we want is strong corporate support, a just-suitably-sized (but fearful and voting) underclass. While demographic trends alone cannot ensure this, a little bit of activisim will have us set.

Frame the Democrats as the party of the Mexican Invasion. Show how the Democratic party is using illegal immigration to gain a permanent majority, and is willing to replace this nation's founding stocks Constitutional freedoms and traditions with a radical multicultural agenda. Show effectively how the US is purposely driven into 2nd world status because of the invasion from the South, and it's the Democrats assisting them all the way.

Aggressively smear every single open borders, free trading, check-pants, sell-out Republican party politician to get them voted OUT every single office and replace them with unapologetic populist nationalists that don't give a s___ about gaining a single NAM vote and can handle the heat when the media paints them as, gasp, NATIVISTS. After all, there is nothing worse than someone looking after their selfish interests and those of their fellow countryman's, is there..?!

NATIVISTS will be the new RACISTS, since being called a racist has lost it's impact after five years of Obama's media blitz. It is losing the ability to make it's recipient recoil appropriately.

THAT is how you make the Republican party viable again. They would definitley regain my vote if they did this.

and government employees get the best damn benefits package this side of the Atlantic. And on...and on...and on...-----------

This was WHAT it use to be like. The future is Muni govts f-ing over thier own employees.

Pensions are not being funded by the govt and will vanish, so will govt workers giving .0001 of a rat's ass.

Think getting a cop or a fireman or your average govt clerk to do thier job is hard NOW? Tell then they won't get a pension after being forced to invest $500 a month every year for 20 years into a failed ponzi scheme! Esp., when the same muni has tens of millions of dollars to burn on pet projects, corporate gift-giving, and graft.

Sirius, don't believe that rubbish. India has its own shibboleths to political correctness. For a more accurate account of the recent Indian genetic study you propably read about, check out Razib Khan's coverage on gene expression:

John Craig, if what you say about Asians is true, how do you account for them becomming MORE, not LESS democratic the longer they are in the US. Dole won the Asan vote, as did republicans generally before him. Now Republicans lose he Asian vote almost 2 to 1 and it's the kids who have been indoctrinated in the universities that are doing this, not thier hard working, first generation parents.

There are millions of blue-collar White voters who probably not enthusiastic about the Deymocratic parties inclusion of the culturally and socially liberal. However, the view the Republican party as offering them a slaves choice:work as a farm worker if you can't find a job-just about chattel slavery I'd say-or starve. Or to put it another way, the Republican party sets the socio-economic bottom way to way. There has to be some barrier to slavery. This is also a problem for Ron Paul which is quite unfortunate since he is excellent on foriegn policy.

Thomas Frank's book "What's the matter with Kansas" could have been a great book. His book fails badly because he advocates mixing the good stuff-grassroots anti-superwealthy populist revolts-with the bad stuff-degenerate liberal culure.

My recommendation for you Steve is to study America's authentic conservative past. Start reading about the populist revolts in American history. You should advocate a populist against economic unfairness blended with social and cultural conservatism,noninterventionist foriegn policy and a cessation of all immigration-the case against it based upon how it harms the interests of White Americans.

A couple of white guys pinned down a "vibrant youth" who had stolen the purse of an oriental woman, then a couple of oriental fellows arrived to help hold him down, then finally the beat cops arrived, and all the while a free-lance photog was snapping pictures.

he's a habitual offender in the loop and metra ,cta property. he challenged me to a fight in the subway while in uniform and lost. of course i didnt have all that help but one flex of my MUSCLES he was down for the count, and yes this was prior to J-FED. today i would have just ran away. no call- back and no law suit, no feds. if you do encounter him he is as strong as the photos show him to be..

But fast forward to the conclusion - after all the work done by the civilians in subduing him, and the beat cops in docking him, and the detectives in working up the paperwork necessary to file the charges - in the end, the oriental woman backed out and refused to get involved in the prosecution.

3. Asians tend to study harder in school--from elementary through college; thus, they become even more indoctrinated by PC than other groups. Ever see all those Ken-Burnsy Asians on PBS in the role of do-goody commentators. They even seem to have imbibed some of 'white guilt' as their own.

4. Asians tend to be conformist, and younger generations naturally conform to mainstream culture and values defined by liberal Hollywood and etc.

5. Asians figure white power is declining whereas black/brown power is increasing. For a small and relatively powerless minority, it's generally safer to side with those on the up and up.

6. Many Asians have businesses in underclass communities. The pathologies of the underclass community may offend conservatively oriented Asians, BUT Asian businessmen know that more welfare for blacks and browns means more business for Asians in the underclass community. Economic self-interest.

1. Build a dam wall across the SW border. If Mexican-Americans are cut off their southern brethren and sistren, they will think more in terms of assmilation than tribal confrontation. We need real conservative politicians with balls to demand this and pull it off. Otherwise, SW--and even other parts of the US--is lost for good.

2. Build a sturdy, hardy, and functional white culture--something other than white trashiness, megamall churches, Nascar, country music, etc. We should look to the white model of German/Swedish/Anglo American model in the North--prior to the 60s--than Red State hicks in the South. Create a white culture that other peoples will respect and want to become a part of. It doesn't have to be 'cool'. Cool is fun but superficial. People think black culture is cool but mainly for style, recreation, fun and games. When it comes to real success, values, cultural meaning and pride, most people don't look to blacks. In the past, white culture was associated with Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Eisenhower, and all that good stuff which carried a real sense of moral and cultural authority. Mexicans once respected white people and culture. Mexicans are naturally a bit submissive and look up to figures of authority. Since white authority no longer exists, Mexicans either gravitate toward black culture or Mexican nationalism(or Che Guevara-ism).

3. Once you build or rebuild a sturdy white culture, go to Mexicans and tell them they can join in if they play by the rules. They don't have to totally abandon their Mexican heritage or sense of pride; rather, they can also become a part of an America that is solid, sturdy, manly, and dignified. Unless we have a white culture and community with dignity and pride, whites cannot win over the minorities such as Mexicans and others--as the liberal Jewish powers are mocking, trashing, subverting, and undermining whiteness 24/7.

"Let's analyze this. A populist groundswell puts the Republicans in power. I can see how this benefits the Republicans (it gives them power), how does this benefit populism?"

I'd prefer a good third-party over the Republicans, but there is none on the horizon.

Of the two major parties, the Republicans are far more likely to convert to the right-wing populism we support than Democrats. In fact, if a third party is to emerge, then it must support populist positions that destroy liberal commercial interests.

Asian Indians are used to and have survived 70% affirmative action quotas

The current entering MD student cohort has 12% IndiansAt some point, Affirmative action will start to biteBut being savvy with Affirmative action, I am sure they will find a way to work around it, such as sending their kids to foreign universities and then transferring over

As a practical matter, on day to day living, Indians are very wary of blacksIndian parents in private, brainwash their kids against black culture and virtually all Indians threaten their kids with outcasting if they date a black

Slave "trading" was legal in 1854... As long as they were here, buy, sell up the river, trade all you want... --Truth

Only so far "up the river", mind you; by the time you got to La Crosse (and the train to Ripon), the last slave market would have been a few leagues behind you.

BTW, how much chattel-trading did the Republicans do in the twelve years it was constitutionally available to them? A better question is, how many modern parties were actively engaged in the slave trade?

The comments above contain a couple of common fallacies of the race realist/nationalist/whatever crowd. One is that you can have a white welfare state, and the other is that you can have a patriotic abortion régime.

The latter is pretty easily seen through: back when folks were much more patriotic, and white folks race-conscious, abortion and the free-love mentality associated therewith horrified them. Race consciousness and abortion restriction were greatly relaxed about the same time, and have risen and (mostly) sunk in tandem since.

People who love their country tend to love their children as well. Indeed, that's where it starts!

As far as the welfare state-- the main reason why "the workingman can't vote Republican/Tory"-- what makes you think the politicians who display "compassion" toward you will suddenly stop when faced with other races more sorely in need of it? In turn, why does it surprise you when the candidate with the spine to tell immigrants to be self-sufficient, tells you to be as well?

It's no accident it always comes down to a Kennedy vs. a Tancredo.

Yes, there have historically been centrist compromise movements in the past. The most successful of these was fascism, which leaves a mess of its own.

SouthAsianIvyLeaguer, "disenfranchising the hicks" isn't "the flip side" of anything. Rather, it's what's coming down the track, provoked or unprovoked. It's not a reason to refrain from devising strategies to change the course of events (on the ground that these strategies can be countered), rather its a reason to devise and attempt such strategies in the face of all odds.

This strikes me as maybe the worst idea I've ever read--almost certainly a disaster for the GOP, and if even a little successful, a disaster for the US as a whole.

It's a disaster for the GOP because ethnic identity politics for whites doesn't really work very well. Note how few whites get upset when an Asian couple moves in next door. Look how few get very upset by intermarriage with an Asian or, in most cases, an hispanic. Both are common where I live. You will never get anything close to 70% of whites to join the white party.

One reason is that whites don't actually share a lot of interests that the rest of the citizens don't share. We'd benefit from getting rid of AA, and generally from race-blind policies where possible. We'd benefit from moving the slider bar a bit further from "prosecute possible discrimination" to "prosecute only obvious discrimination." And that's about it.

Immigration reform? It has little effect on my social class--there aren't a lot of Mexican researchers coming to take my job, whereas the folks who cut my grass would cost a lot more if they spoke English. Blacks would actually benefit more than upper-middle-class whites, I think.

Cutting welfare? About the same number of whites and blacks are on welfare. (That's a much higher rate for blacks, obviously.) Those whites aren't going to think cutting welfare is in their interests.

And so on. About the only large-scale pro-white policies available will involve overt discrimination in favor of whites, or policies that cover that discrimination with a fig leaf. Look at the election results, at the polling data on racial attitudes, on the voting patterns of the last 40 years. Do you believe you can get 70% of whites on board for that? Honestly? Or even for just the explicitly white party? After 43% of white voters voted for Obama?

And let's suppose the strategy is successful somehow. We then get two things:

a. A country with the same demographics we currently have (maybe less immigration), but with incredibly racially polarized politics.

b. A GOP that either abandons free market sorts of policies, or (more likely) uses racial identity to get most whites to buy into their own fleecing on behalf of really rich companies. (The beauty will be that minorities will also buy into their own fleecing on behalf of those same companies. Goldman Sachs and Lockheed and Microsoft recognize no color but green.)

If the GOP is looking for a strategy to finish running itself and the country into the ground, after the worst Bush and company could do, this is it.

"BTW, how much chattel-trading did the Republicans do in the twelve years it was constitutionally available to them? A better question is, how many modern parties were actively engaged in the slave trade?"

You'll have to ask someone else, I wasn't there. However the original point remains, the democrats and republicans both were established when slavery was legal, is this so hard?

"Do they even have parties in Khartoum and Nouakchott?"

So this is where you get all non-sequitor on me and build a nice tall straw man with the there-are-still-slaves-in-Africa card, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

"Note how few whites get upset when an Asian couple moves in next door. Look how few get very upset by intermarriage with an Asian or, in most cases, an hispanic."

Right. It's because whites don't have a visceral hostility to other races that empowering them to survive demographically, to flourish and not be disfranchised, might be a morally good idea, if it was possible.

From that point of view, ideas aimed at breaking up an "everybody whip whitey" coalition are, by default, good, or at least worth considering.

"Note how few whites get upset when an Asian couple moves in next door. Look how few get very upset by intermarriage with an Asian or, in most cases, an hispanic. Both are common where I live. You will never get anything close to 70% of whites to join the white party."

This is an argument for, rather than against what Sailer proposed. He did not want to create a "white party" and an "everyone else" party, that is, according to Steve what we already have. He adocated creating a "black" party and an "everyone else" party, and if non-black interracial relationships are considered as neutral as you say they are (I don't believe it, but I'll play along) then all of the white-Asian and white-Hispanic couples will join the "non-black" party post haste.

Which brings me to the second part.Just like the mythos of black-on-white rape fueled the antiblack sentiment at that time, use the specter of the neoconfederates and the skinheads prowling around in the hicktowns of America to unify the minorities. The SPLC already does this. But I say that we should take propaganda of this sort to the schools, to hispanic and asian neighborhoods. Show them graphic footage of undocumented workers dying on the way to America, etc. At the same time, educate immigrants' children about the history of colonial domination and how the rural whites carry that legacy. Make them feel this in the concrete rather than the abstract--bus them to rural country fairs and make them feel the alienation and the cold stares, teach them that confederate flags still fly in America.

And when I even suggested that South Asians would cooperate with our Mestizo Catholic underclass to further our dispossession I was laughed at.

White Americans vote with their feet against diversity and hmogeneous asian communities. when the Asians move in large enough numbers, Whites pack up and leave. there are many examples of this phenomena.

This is evidence for the existence of a White racial conciousness. when life becomes even more miserable than it is now for White Americans,I predict that White racial conciousness will be be expressed much more openly than it is now.

The Republican party is deeply embedded with corporate interests. For this reason it will never represent White American interests.

Something will fill the political vacum. And whatever does will represent White American racial interests.

Reg Ceasar

If abortion is made illegal the same horror stories that brought about its leglaization will very likely make it legal again.

Also, if abortion is first degree murder, does the woman who aborts the White mother raped and made pregnant by a Black rapist get life in prison or the death penalty for aborting the the rapists fetus?

One can also be in favor of legalized abortion and oppose Homosexual marriage.

This strikes me as maybe the worst idea I've ever read--almost certainly a disaster for the GOP, and if even a little successful, a disaster for the US as a whole.......

One reason is that whites don't actually share a lot of interests that the rest of the citizens don't share........

Immigration reform? It has little effect on my social class--there aren't a lot of Mexican researchers coming to take my job, whereas the folks who cut my grass would cost a lot more if they spoke English......"

3. Asians tend to study harder in school--from elementary through college; thus, they become even more indoctrinated by PC than other groups.

It would be more accurate to say that Asians have a similar mindset to liberal academic whites, and a very dissimilar one to non-academic whites. The one main difference is that Asians have stronger family ties.

Plus the anti-intellectualism on the part of certain conservatives turns them off.

4. Asians tend to be conformist,

In what way? I could argue just as well that in terms of superficial "coolness", fashion, and the like, Asians are more individualist and less conformist than whites.

and younger generations naturally conform to mainstream culture and values defined by liberal Hollywood and etc.

Being slaves to Hollywood is more a white - and black - thing.

5. Asians figure white power is declining whereas black/brown power is increasing.

This also applies to Jews.

6. Many Asians have businesses in underclass communities. ... Asian businessmen know that more welfare for blacks and browns means more business for Asians

IMO, that is not so true anymore. More Asians are professionals now, particularly in health care, rather than dime-store owners in slums.

7. Religion.

Fairly or unfairly, the GOP and American conservatives in general, has earned the reputation of being Holy Rollers. That really scares Asians, even the conservative Christian ones. East and South Asians may be Buddhist, Confucian, Hindu, Muslim, Christian, or anything else. But they all, even the Muslims and Christians, treat religion as a private affair, and hate to see it made public.

To Asians, the Republicans are not so much a white party, but a militantly Christian one.

Interesting idea. Not sure how it would work. Wouldn’t Republicans seem transparently disingenuous when praising Democrats? Are there any historical examples of a similar strategy working?

Derb (via Alan Stewart above) is correct that many supported Obama as a gesture of tokenism. So demands for a permanent black space on the D presidential ticket are probably doomed.

SouthAsian-for the past 30 years Democrats have done a fine job of pushing the myth that hicks are the enemy. So you're probably just a troll. If not, your baby-boomer strategy is worn out. Young people especially realize that the “hick” smear is a red herring.

It's because the rural/urban divide on race is a myth. Farmers don’t think about race. They rarely interact with minorities. And when they do, they don’t take time to conspire against them. Redlining was a big city thing. The sharpest critics of multiculturalism are those who actually live with it: upper middle class white suburbanites & working class urban whites.

Think of Jennifer Gratz & Frank Ricci. Their ranks are growing. Check out a few posts on Democratic Underground. You'll see that even the hard left has mixed feelings about AA.

The left is stronger on race. Most Republicans were eager to absolve themselves of the sin of racism. So they dismissed multiculturalism as a problem only for Johnny Reb, fancied themselves colorblind & never wrestled with the uncomfortable questions on race.

the democrats and republicans both were established when slavery was legal, is this so hard?

"Do they even have parties in Khartoum and Nouakchott?"

So this is where you get all non-sequitor on me and build a nice tall straw man with the there-are-still-slaves-in-Africa card, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question at hand.

Oh, Truth, Truth, Truth... you were right in your reply to None of the Above, but here you conflate when and where. The Republican Party was established in the free states.

Yes, there was slavery in the slaves states-- as well as Mauritania, and Brazil and a few other places-- at the time, but there was no Republican Party active there. (That had to wait until Reconstruction.)

So, by the definition of Truth, any party founded anywhere in the world by 1980 (the year of Mauritania's nominal abolition) would "date to the slave trade".

But most people use that term to mean the international slave trade, not the domestic practice of slavery.

I remember your article about liberals going extinct through low birth rates. I think a 70% white share of the GOP is inevitable in 2050 even without any strategy at all. White Dems will die out, whites in the GOP won't, and the Democrats will become nonwhite by default.

Patriot Act, War with Iran, slavery to Israel Lobby, American global empire expansionist policy - those things won't be debated, as both parties are paid by the same people to vote a certain way.

As an immigrant American, I think we should look through right vs. left, Democrat vs. Republican.

And if you think Republicans have the interest of the (white) Americans at heart, may I remind you (Steve-o also profiled this) of 'W' Bush and his cronies peddling the (almost) free housing to immigrants and all minorities.

Remember?

The big giantic housing bubble?

How about the oil bubble?

And don't give me this crap anymore, Steve-o.

Republicans (just like Democrats) are defenders of the elite, the top 5% of this nation's interests.

Look, you guys want to know how to peal Asian American voters away from the Dems? Well this divide and conqueor Sailer Strategy 2.0 is not going to do it. How dumb do you think we are...I mean we have higher IQs than you white folks ;P

Since I have posted on this board I was accused by cowardly anonymous posters of 1) benefiting from Affirmative Action (yeah right) and 2) being a perfect example for immigration restriction (I was born in the US as were my parents). The fact is as long as folks like many on this board make up a big chunk of the GOP, I won't be voting for the Republicans, at least not nationally anyway. In NY local and state elections I sometimes do pull the GOP lever because the NY GOP for all its flaws isn't filled with hateful bigots. See I'd rather pay high taxes than join a party where bigots make up a large faction.

Incidentally, Steve I do think you are a smart and interesting guy. I would so have a beer with you ;P I also think you guys have a point about immigration restriction...I just don't like the racism behind it. But if you want to know why me and other minorities (economically successful upwardly mobile ones fyi) will not vote GOP. Well you have the answer. We'd rather support a party where people accept us as fellow Americans and citizens even if it means paying higher taxes.

Wow, Pissed Off Chinaman, you must be so utterly revolted by the immigration policies of the Asian nations here on Planet Earth that you are unable to visit those nations even briefly as a tourist.

Those nasty, bigoted, xenophobic Asian nation immigration policies must sicken you to your very core. Crazy ass racist exclusionary anti-immigrant policy seems to be the accepted norm all over Asia. Whatever shall we do about it? What can be done?

Dude, what the hell does the immigration policy of Asian nations have to do with me? I'm not from Asia and I've only been there a few occasions (mostly because I hate the length of the flights). Assuming that immigration to Asia is as restricted as you say; basically you're telling me that I as an Asian American am responsible for the restrictive immigration policies of nations that I have no affiliation to other than the color of my skin and the shape of my eyes. And you're offended by my accusations of bigotry? And Steve you wonder why I have problems voting for Republicans on a national level when the party has so many members like EDED?

For what it's worth I actually agree with ya'll on immigration restriction, although for me it has nothing to do with race. I'm more concerned that the US not become overpopulated due to the negative environmental externalities. Also I very much object to Japanese ethnic policy, not just its restrictive immigration but the way they treat their indigenous minority groups (Koreans, Ainu, Okinawans...etc)

You're putting words into my mouth. When did I ever say I wanted to live in a majority Asian country. I don't, I like it in America fine. I'm an educated professional in an urban area like many folks in this country of all ethnic and cultural backgrounds. I got no problem with whites as a group...in fact my current girlfriend is from an Eastern European family that came to the US around the time the Cold War ended. (How about that, my gf who is white has less deep roots in the US than my Chinese American family which has been in America for 3 generations) I don't see how Asian Americans are replacing whites since we're barely 5 percent of the population and intermarrying with white folks at high levels. I don't see how Asian Americans are damaging the racial and economic interests of whites either since you guys are still at the top of the societal pyramid. (I work in a white shoe law firm so believe me I would know).

Now what I do see is that folks like EDED and PT appear to dislike me and/or consider me a foreigner for no other reason than my ethnic origin while disregarding my birth and upbringing. I also notice that most of these folks seem to be concentrated on the political right. So I add 2 and 2 together (since we Asians are all math geniuses right? sarcasm) And that folks is why minority groups, even if we have our own divisions, tend to be extremely suspicious of the American right. Incidentally, this is also why Jews and white ethnics are also less than thrilled with the GOP. Many of them figure that once the "colored problem" has been dealt with, that they would be next.

Oh yeah, and I do not support massive immigration of any sort, white or non-white. I just think that whatever immigrants we do take in should be done so in a way that does not discriminate by race.

Here's the Google Wallet FAQ. From it: "You will need to have (or sign up for) Google Wallet to send or receive money. If you have ever purchased anything on Google Play, then you most likely already have a Google Wallet. If you do not yet have a Google Wallet, don’t worry, the process is simple: go to wallet.google.com and follow the steps." You probably already have a Google ID and password, which Google Wallet uses, so signing up Wallet is pretty painless.

You can put money into your Google Wallet Balance from your bank account and send it with no service fee.

Google Wallet works from both a website and a smartphone app (Android and iPhone -- the Google Wallet app is currently available only in the U.S., but the Google Wallet website can be used in 160 countries).

Or, once you sign up with Google Wallet, you can simply send money via credit card, bank transfer, or Wallet Balance as an attachment from Google's free Gmail email service. Here'show to do it.

(Non-tax deductible.)

Fourth: if you have a Wells Fargo bank account, you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Wells Fargo SurePay. Just tell WF SurePay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). (Non-tax deductible.)

Fifth: if you have a Chase bank account (or, theoretically,other bank accounts), you can transfer money to me (with no fees) via Chase QuickPay (FAQ). Just tell Chase QuickPay to send the money to my ancient AOL email address (steveslrATaol.com -- replace the AT with the usual @). If Chase asks for the name on my account, it's Steven Sailer with an n at the end of Steven. (Non-tax deductible.)

My Book:

"Steve Sailer gives us the real Barack Obama, who turns out to be very, very different - and much more interesting - than the bland healer/uniter image stitched together out of whole cloth this past six years by Obama's packager, David Axelrod. Making heavy use of Obama's own writings, which he admires for their literary artistry, Sailer gives the deepest insights I have yet seen into Obama's lifelong obsession with 'race and inheritance,' and rounds off his brilliant character portrait with speculations on how Obama's personality might play out in the Presidency." - John Derbyshire Author, "Prime Obsession: Bernhard Riemann and the Greatest Unsolved Problem in Mathematics" Click on the image above to buy my book, a reader's guide to the new President's autobiography.